I made an account last week named "Ciaglownigger". I made it on a second device, but the same IP address with no VPN used.
I then made this post, which referenced a popular data set regarding homicide statistics by race and income.
The photo claims that it is sourced from BJS. I've spent over a year trying to find the table, but cannot, and am almost certain that it's made-up, and whoever created it simply put "Source: BJS" at the bottom.
A few in the comments caught on and mentioned it, but most were convinced it was real and it got almost 90 upvoats.
Moral of the story: Please verify your sources before believe or upvoting, even if the data justifies a real point (black people are more violent regardless of income). If you pull this up in an argument, you'll be sitting on your hands when they ask you to source it. Also, maybe be a bit more skeptical of accounts with only one submission named "CIAglownigger"
view the rest of the comments →
armday2day ago
Any OP that provides citations at the scholarly level is doing everyone on voat a huge service
Just an idea
cyclops1771 ago
Yeah, but if you do, you get DV'd to hell if it doesn't fit the "narrative".
Source: Did actual data verification of the "Jew Slave Ships" meme that proclaimed non-Jews as Jews.
YouveSeenTheButcher ago
Nobody is going to take you seriously. And after looking through your submissions they are completely justified in not trusting you and the information you put forward.
It's a clever way to get people to discount truth, but will ultimately fail.
cyclops1771 ago
Person A says 'X'. Person A also tells stupid jokes. Therefore, 'X' is FALSE.
This is a logical fallacy. The proof of 'X' has nothing to do with telling stupid jokes. they are unrelated facts.
So, are you being a Jew by arguing like a Jew, or are you unable to understand simple Logic?
YouveSeenTheButcher ago
You are dumb if that is the conclusion you reached after reading what I wrote.
I didn't say you were wrong or that the truth is no longer truth if a certain person person communicates it, you dumb fuck.
People who look at your profile will be less likely to take you seriously because of the bullshit you post and the subverses you post in. Same goes for Q fags.
You come off as a jester, is all.
cyclops1771 ago
Ah, so we go from the logical fallacy of a Non-Sequitar (Person A tells jokes, therefore what they say is wrong) to ad hominems (Person A is wrong because I called them names.)
Again, this is a logical fallacy. The statements one makes stands on their own, not on other things a person says or does. This type of appeal to stupidity (ridicule/dismissal of an argument based on other things other than the statement at hand.) It also leads to the red herring fallacy, where the topic is moved away from the main topic at hand, to discuss some other topic (like Person A proved a meme incorrect, so let's throw out the red herring of 'They post in fun subs where people make stupid jokes.' Red herring logical fallacies are generally used to divert attention away from the point the fallacious person wants to avoid discussing. In this case, the incorrectness of the alleged Jew slave ships Polly owned by the DeWolf family of Newport, RI, who were not Jews.)
The jester's role in medieval courts was to speak truth to power in a way that didn't get their head chopped off or their land titles revoked.
Thanks for the name calling though. It really shows you how pwerful and strong you are, using mean words as your logical reasoning. Pretty powerful stuff. My feefees are so hurt by your mean internet words!
YouveSeenTheButcher ago
Do you remember how this conversation satrted?
You were complaining about getting downvoated after posting truthful content. I responded to explain a possible reason as to why.
You think my intention is to discount the truth. It's not. I'm not even trying to discount you and your credibility. The odds of someone thinking you're just a shitposter trying to stir shit up is high because of your posting history.
It's not illogical to see that people who do not know you, are going to look for information about you to determine if they should trust the things you say. And most people don't have the time or knowhow to verify the information you post, so instead they'll downvoat you and keep an eye out for a more trustworthy source.
People are already on the defensive due to the onslaught of deception through the media and government so they'ree going to be much more inquisitve and invetigative about, not just the information, but the person speaking/posting the information: "What are their past behaviors?", "What are their posting habits?", "Have they been caught lying in the past?", "Are they Muslim?", "Are they Jewish?", etc..
Appearance matters online just as much as it does in the real world. First impressions are important, and this may be the reason why you were downvoated.
People just don't like what they see when looking at you.
cyclops1771 ago
I provided links to academic journals and Archive sites that listed the actual source material, scanned page for page for their perusal.
Incorrect, posting the truth goes against the "narrative" that they want to create (Whites ALWAYS perfect, Joos ALWAYS bad, which in itself is another logical fallacy!) so they DV it, as the cognitive dissonance of seeing a truth that goes against their constructed worldview must be FALSE, therefore not to be seen or heard.
The funny part is, the whole point I posted the truth was so that people would stop posting factually incorrect items, because it is easy to make the (logically false) argument that if one piece of information is wrong in an item, the whole item is suspect. If 95% of the slave trade was Jew, and 5% White, that still displays a pretty harsh view of Jews. Even if it were 50-50, it's still horrible look for the Jew. Just be accurate with the accusations. Interesting how people who can critically think about the Holocaust or Israel's crimes or Muslim terrorism or government corruption or usurpation sure seem to lose the ability when it conflicts with their own worldview.
YouveSeenTheButcher ago
You're going to get pushback when you tell the truth.
It takes some time for the turth to settle in some people. Some will deny it at first but will, slowly, begin to accpet it.
Lies spread quickly like the wind. The truth spreads slowly growing roots as it spreads.
Everyone, even you, commit logically fallacies to satisfy their bias. But biases are not inherently bad. An example of a healthy bias is that people prefer their own race and culture over other races and cultures.
cyclops1771 ago
Being self-aware and understanding logical fallacies and logical/critical thinking is a sign of an enlightened and free person. Being unaware of logical inconsistencies is the mind of a slave. It is by owning up to previous logical fallacies that I am able to overcome those lies, to understand the world, see through the miasma that MSM, Alphabets, and evil people spout forth to obfuscate their malfeasance.
That is a preference, not a bias. A bias would be to assume that every person of same race is good, and everyone of different race is evil. Bias is inherently logically false, due to the "all of every" fallacy. However, I agree that an innate bias is healthy in that it human nature protects you from harm in terms of detecting threats - those that appear different (whether it be race, or dress, or actions) are not to be trusted. I think that bias is more of an active skill or trait, rather than an innate one. Bias, to me, is selecting to accept those specific items that reinforce the worldview and to reject those that diminish the worldview, regardless of if either is true.
For example, say I am biased against food grown in Mexico, because Mexicans are dirty fucking people who don't wash their hands after shitting in the fields. So, I choose to not buy food from Mexico, but buy food from USA. But, the same dirty fucking people are picking the food! My bias displays the logical fallacy of only purchasing the food from USA, and not Mexico, which is unhealthy. I should assume that all food is picked by dirty fucking Mexicans, so I should wash them no matter the origin. That is how being aware that bias leads to a loss or failure of logical or critical thinking, and affects my ability to make the correct decision (wash all food) over the incorrect decision (stay away from food grown in Mexico to avoid the literal shit on my food form the dirty fucking Mexicans.)